The Companies Act is a legislation that governs the formation, functioning, and management of companies. Explore the key provisions, compliance requirements, and legal framework under the Companies Act.
Company Law : The Companies Act, 2013 and related rules now require most public and private companies to issue and transfer securities only in d...
Company Law : The Companies Law Amendment Bill, 2026 proposes major reforms in corporate governance, compliance, and digital regulation. This ar...
Company Law : This guide explains the complete legal procedure for shifting a company’s registered office within the same state but under a di...
Company Law : Section 56 of Companies Act, 2013 requires execution of a proper instrument of transfer for transfer of interest of a member in a ...
Corporate Law : The article explains how digital adjudication systems, virtual hearings, and online compliance platforms are reshaping India’s c...
Company Law : Provisional list of audit firms of listed companies yet to file NFRA-2 for 2023-24. Filing deadline was 30.11.2025; fines apply fo...
Company Law : ICSI recommended restoring public access to basic company master data without mandatory login requirements. The representation sta...
Company Law : NFRA introduced guidelines to evaluate audit firms’ compliance and quality control systems. The framework emphasizes governance,...
Company Law : ICSI highlights delays in marking defective forms by RoCs under CCFS 2026. It urges MCA to mandate time-bound processing or allow ...
Company Law : The issue is ambiguity in filing authority during liquidation. ICSI has requested clarity to enable liquidators to maintain statut...
Company Law : The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to...
Company Law : Legal Analysis and Narrative Brief: Dale and Carrington Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. P.K. Prathapan and Others (Supreme Cou...
Company Law : The case examined whether Tribunal approval was required for extending preference share redemption. It was held that such extensio...
Company Law : The Tribunal held that allegations of siphoning ₹30 lakh were not supported by any evidence tracing funds to the respondent. Mer...
Company Law : The Court held that a separate meeting of sub-class shareholders is not required when identical terms are offered to the entire cl...
Company Law : ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under ...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Se...
Company Law : ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Secti...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai-II imposed penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly mentioned the AGM date in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order h...
The regulator examined a failure to disclose full allottee particulars in the return of allotment. It held that incomplete disclosures violate securities allotment rules and attract penalty under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that non-receipt of official correspondence proved a breach of the statutory duty to maintain a registered office. Penalties were imposed on the company and its directors under Section 12(8) of the Companies Act.
The ruling confirms that when equal owners are locked in irreconcilable deadlock, a solvent company may be wound up on just and equitable grounds.
The rules make it clear that any appointment, resignation, or designation change of directors or KMPs must be filed in DIR-12 within the statutory timeline to avoid penalties.
Paid-up capital and turnover limits were enhanced to widen the small company regime. The change reduces regulatory burden and expands access to compliance relaxations.
The Registrar held that failure to disclose the risk management policy in the Board’s Report violated statutory reporting obligations. The key takeaway is that directors remain personally liable even after company strike-off.
Non-maintenance of statutory registers triggered adjudication under company law. Officers in default were held personally liable despite liquidation.
The adjudicating authority held that non-appointment of an internal auditor despite crossing the statutory turnover threshold violated company law. Directors were personally penalised, reinforcing strict compliance with audit requirements.
The adjudicating authority held directors liable for non-filing of Form MGT-8 for an earlier financial year. Liquidation of the company did not shield officers from personal penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose deposits accepted from related parties violated mandatory Board report norms. The key takeaway is strict enforcement of deposit disclosure requirements under company law.
